Product Liability – Hunton Retail Law Resourcehttps://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com
Analysis and Insight in Retail LawThu, 09 Apr 2020 18:50:40 +0000en-US
hourly
1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.3.3&lxb_maple_bar_source=lxb_maple_bar_sourcehttps://retailindustryblogfullservice.huntonwilliamsblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2018/04/cropped-favicon-32x32.pngProduct Liability – Hunton Retail Law Resourcehttps://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com
3232Recall Roundup: March 2020https://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/2020/04/articles/consumer-protection/recall-roundup-march-2020/
Thu, 09 Apr 2020 18:50:40 +0000https://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/?p=13905Continue Reading]]>The COVID-19 pandemic has changed most aspects of the economy. The world of consumer products is no exception to this trend. The CPSC has the following notice posted on its website warning that not all recall remedies may be currently available:

The CPSC also issued guidance for keeping consumers’ homes safe during the pandemic. One area of focus is child-resistant packaging on medicines and cleaning products given that school closures have forced families to stay at home. Recent recalls also reflect the CPSC’s focus on product packaging: nearly one-third (8 of 26) of March’s recalls concerned packaging issues. The recalls involved either failures to meet child-resistant packaging requirements under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act or failures to meet “poison” labeling requirements under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act. We expect to see the CPSC continue its enforcement efforts to protect children from accidental ingestion of potentially harmful products during the pandemic.

In March, the CPSC voted unanimously to move forward with a proposed federal safety rule prohibiting the sale of padded, pillow-like crib bumpers that fail to meet minimum airflow requirements (similar to mesh liners). The rule would protect infants from suffocation and death hazards linked to crib bumpers. Currently, crib bumpers are only subject to voluntary industry standards. The next step is for the proposed rule to be open for public comment followed by the issuance of a final mandatory standard for crib bumpers that would replace the current, voluntary ASTM standard with tougher requirements. A few states have already banned padded crib bumpers, including Ohio, Maryland and New York.

]]>Recall Roundup: February 2020https://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/2020/03/articles/consumer-protection/recall-roundup-february-2020/
Fri, 13 Mar 2020 18:39:42 +0000https://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/?p=13863Continue Reading]]>This month’s Recall Roundup starts with the wish that the coronavirus could be recalled. Perhaps the would-be CPSC commissioner who could deliver that recall would be unanimously approved.

On the topic of would-be commissioners, President Trump recently announced his intent to nominate Dr. Nancy Beck to be Chairman and Commissioner of the agency. Beck currently serves as the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. She previously worked in various capacities at the EPA and Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Beck also worked as the Senior Director for Science Regulatory Policy at the American Chemistry Council, which is a chemical industry lobbyist group.

The CPSC currently consists of two Republican appointees and two Democratic appointees with one of the Democratic appointees—Robert Adler—serving as Acting Chairman. If confirmed by the US Senate, Beck would restore the Republican majority on the CPSC and take over the agency’s leadership reins as the permanent chairman. The path to confirmation, however, may be challenging. President Trump previously nominated Ann Marie Buerkle on three occasions to serve as the CPSC’s permanent chairman. The U.S. Senate failed to act on each nomination and Buerkle later left the CPSC to return to private practice. With an election year on the horizon and control of the agency at stake, Beck’s confirmation process is unlikely to be smooth or fast. For example, although the U.S. House of Representatives serves no formal role in the confirmation process, the Chairman of the House’s Energy and Commerce Committee—Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ)—has already issued a statement opposing the nomination. If confirmed, Beck would be the only scientist appointed to the CPSC as the current four commissioners are lawyers.

In products news, the CPSC continues to focus its regulatory efforts on hoverboards. Hoverboards have lingered in news headlines for over two years for causing fires. The CPSC recently warned consumers not to charge or use one manufacturer’s hoverboard because the product’s lithium ion batteries can overheat, posing a fire hazard. The CPSC asked the manufacturer to recall the hoverboard but the company refused to do so, precipitating the warning. The CPSC emphasized that hoverboards should be compliant with the UL2272 safety standard, which is an electrical system certification for personal mobility devices. The CPSC observed that the manufacturer’s hoverboard bears the UL2272 mark but it is no longer UL-listed and a sample tested showed that it does not conform to UL 2272.

]]>FTC targets Teami’s Unsupported Health Claims and Use of Social Media Influencershttps://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/2020/03/articles/advertising-marketing/ftc-targets-teamis-unsupported-health-claims-and-use-of-social-media-influencers/
Tue, 10 Mar 2020 18:06:17 +0000https://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/?p=13852Continue Reading]]>On March 6, 2020, the FTC announced a settlement with Teami, LLC and its owners over allegations that the company falsely promoted its Teami brand tea products as capable of curing serious health conditions and causing significant weight loss, supported by endorsements by well-known social media influencers who did not adequately disclose that they were being paid to promote their products. According to the FTC, after receiving a warning letter from the FTC in 2018, Teami implemented a social media policy requiring informative hashtags, but failed to enforce it, resulting in less-than-clear posts. The FTC’s settlement requires Teami to substantiate, with competent and reliable scientific evidence (i.e., random, placebo controlled, double-blinded human clinical testing), any claims that their products treat particular diseases or cause appreciable weight loss. The order also requires clear and conspicuous disclosures of any unexpected material connection and imposes endorser monitoring requirements. Finally, the order imposes a $15.2 million judgment—the total sales of the challenged products—which will be suspended upon payment of $1 million, based on the defendants’ inability to pay the full judgment.

In addition to this action, the FTC sent warning letters to the 10 social media influencers cited in the FTC’s complaint.

]]>Recall Roundup: Januaryhttps://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/2020/02/articles/consumer-protection/recall-roundup-january-4/
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:42:22 +0000https://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/?p=13835Continue Reading]]>The new year ushered in a series of warnings from the CPSC about inclined infant sleepers posing suffocation risks and dressers posing tip-over risks to consumers. Both products have been under scrutiny by the CPSC over the past year.

In October, the CPSC issued guidance urging consumers to stop using inclined infant sleep products after reports of 1,108 incidents, including 72 infant deaths. Last month, the CPSC continued to raise alarm about inclined infant sleepers by announcing the recalls of more than 165,000 sleepers from four importers due to suffocation risks. The CPSC also warned consumers about the suffocation risks posed by one brand of the inclined infant sleepers. The CPSC urged consumers to stop using the brand’s sleepers immediately.

Furniture tip-overs associated with chests and drawers have been a recent focus of the CPSC. For example, the CPSC in November announced that there were 459 reported tip-over-related deaths involving children 17 years old and younger between 2000 and 2008. This month, the CPSC warned consumers about four-drawer dressers after the manufacturer refused to issue a recall. The CPSC tested the dresser and found it was unstable and prone to tip over. The CPSC also expressed its intent to continue pressing the manufacturer to recall the dressers.

Off-highway vehicles (OHVs), which include all-terrain vehicles and utility task vehicles, also came into focus after three recalls this month due to collision hazards. Relatedly, the Consumer Federation of America issued an analysis of OHV recalls announced by the CPSC over the last decade. The analysis states that there have been 110 OHV recalls with the highest number occurring in the past three years. Most of the recalls were driven by fire (45%), throttle (14%), and steering (10%) hazards. Further, 19 brands were involved in the recalls of almost 1.5 million OHVs that resulted in at least 70 injuries and 2 deaths.

An insurer providing contaminated products insurance to an international food distributor has filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit in New York state court seeking to bar coverage for a claim arising from a recall of defective cookie butter jars. In Berkley Assurance Company v. Acme Food Sales, Inc., Berkley alleges that a contaminated products insurance policy purchased by food importer, distributor and marketer Acme Food Sales provides no coverage for losses Acme incurred in recalling the defective cookie butter jars. The dispute began when one of Acme’s customers informed Acme that it had discovered certain jars of cookie butter contained defective inner foil seals. Acme notified its supplier of the inner seal issue and was able to trace the affected products to two lots that had been shipped to the customer. Berkley alleges, however, that the manufacturer told Acme that the defect did not present a foods safety hazard.

Berkley also alleges that the cookie butter products were not contaminated; the use of the products did not result in any bodily injury, property damage or adverse publicity; the jars were withdrawn from store shelves less than a week after Acme became aware of the issue. As a result, Berkley argues that Acme failed to satisfy any of the three requirements to trigger the policy’s accidental contamination coverage where: (i) there was no inadvertent or unintentional contamination of the products; (ii) even if there was contamination, there is no evidence that it was during or as a direct result of the products’ manufacturing, packaging or distribution; and (iii) the products did not result and would not result in any bodily injury, property damage or adverse publicity.

Berkley also asserts that the policy’s government recall coverage does not apply because neither Acme, its supplier, nor the customer had notified or communicated with a government food safety regulatory agency about the affected products. And even if they had been in touch with a government agency about the recall, Berkley states it was not advised that the recall of the cookie butter arose directly from an agency’s determination that the consumption of the products posed an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, which is required to trigger coverage. Acme’s “voluntary” recall, Berkley argues, precludes coverage under the policy.

We will continue to monitor this dispute for further updates, including Acme’s response to Berkley’s coverage arguments.

The parties in the Kormondy product recall coverage dispute, previously reported on this blog, have reached a settlement, and the pending litigation will be dismissed within the next 30 days. Beef and poultry cooking facility Kormondy Enterprises (formerly National Steak Processors, Inc.) had sued its excess insurer in Oklahoma federal district court for denying its insurance claim arising from several lawsuits relating to a product recall of ready-to-eat chicken products.

The insurer, Great American, filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the excess policy’s “organic pathogens” endorsement excluded coverage because the recalls were initiated because of possible undercooking and bacterial pathogens. Great American also argued that coverage for the product recalls and resulting state court litigation was excluded under various “business risk” exclusions, including an exclusion for property damage arising out of the insured’s “product,” an exclusion for “impaired property,” and a “recalled product” or “sistership” exclusion, all of which the insurer argued barred coverage for the undercooked, adulterated chicken products. Finally, even if the exclusions did not apply, Great American asserted that the policy did not provide coverage for the underlying breach of warranty claims and was never triggered because Kormondy’s primary insurance has not yet been exhausted.

Shortly after the summary judgment motion was filed, the court entered an order stating that the parties reached a settlement and that the dismissal documents would be filed by March 11, 2020. The Kormondy dispute highlights a number of common exclusions in general liability and excess policies related to products and pathogens that insurers often rely on to deny coverage for any recall-related claims. But as the coverage lawsuit and subsequent settlement show, policyholders frequently have numerous arguments for coverage that can result in recovery for defense and indemnity losses under traditional policies.

]]>SHARE Information Act Could Increase Companies’ Product Liability Litigation Riskhttps://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/2020/01/articles/consumer-protection/share-information-act-could-increase-companies-product-liability-litigation-risk/
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 19:50:02 +0000https://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/?p=13786Continue Reading]]>A new bill introduced in Congress earlier this month could increase litigation risk for the retail industry by leaving companies unable to prevent the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from disclosing inaccurate or premature information about potential product hazards. The Safety Hazard and Recall Efficiency (SHARE) Information Act, introduced on January 9, 2020, by U.S. Representative Bobby L. Rush (D-IL), would also increase the maximum civil penalty for violations of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) from $15 million to $50 million. Largely seen as a response to public criticism over the perceived delays in the CPSC’s disclosure of hazards associated with infant inclined sleepers over the last year, the SHARE Information Act would allow the CPSC to tell the public that a product may pose a safety issue before the hazard has been confirmed.

The SHARE Information Act’s Proposed Rollback of an Important Procedural Safeguard

Currently, the CPSC must give companies at least 15 days’ notice of its intent to disclose any information it has received under the CPSA (for instance, a company’s self-report of a potential issue). More often than not, the CPSC works closely with companies to issue joint statements and coordinate recalls, if necessary. But if a company disagrees with the information the CPSC intends to make public, it has the option of pursuing an injunction to prevent disclosure. Though rarely used, the possibility of an injunction operates as an important check on the CPSC’s power and promotes public safety by encouraging the CPSC to ensure that the information it discloses to the public is accurate. The SHARE Information Act, however, would remove that safeguard.

The SHARE Information Act has been billed by some consumer advocacy groups as a measure to increase public safety, but it may have the opposite effect. The CPSA’s current confidentiality provisions encourage companies to report potential product safety hazards quickly to the CPSC because those reports will not be made public if—as is often the case—they turn out to be false alarms. If the SHARE Information Act passes, however, companies would not be able to prevent the CPSC from immediately and publicly characterizing a reported issue as a safety hazard before it conducts an investigation to confirm the danger. Indeed, given the drastic effect an inaccurate CPSC announcement could have on business, companies may delay sharing information about potential product hazards. Instead, companies may conduct their own independent investigation before reporting to the CPSC—leaving dangerous products on the market undetected and threatening consumers’ safety.

The problems the SHARE Information Act could create have already been previewed in several of the CPSC’s recent unilateral actions, which have left companies uncertain about how to comply with the CPSC’s expectations. Last March, the CPSC announced that clothing storage units that did not comply with a voluntary tip-over safety standard, ASTM F2057-17, would be considered a “substantial product hazard.” This announcement effectively created a mandatory standard without any formal rulemaking. Later in 2019, ASTM issued a revised standard, ASTM F2057-19, which, for the first time, included guidance for determining the appropriate weight for a television placed on a clothing storage unit and revised the required warning label. The CPSC has not clarified its stance on ASTM F2057-19, leaving companies in the dark about what tests their products should meet.

Amid the uncertainty over the CPSC’s approach to the voluntary clothing storage unit tip-over standard, in January 2020 the agency issued a rare unilateral release warning of a “serious tip-over hazard” posed by Hodedah HI4DR four-drawer dressers and identifying four retailers who had sold the dressers. Notably, the warning did not identify which tip-over standard the CPSC used to test the dresser. Instead, the warning stated only that the CPSC tested the dresser and “found that it is unstable and can tip over if not anchored to the wall, posing serious tip-over and entrapment hazards that can result in injuries to children or even death.”

Presumably, given the CPSC’s suggestion that it “intends to continue pressing the case for a recall with Hodedah,” the company was given notice of the CPSC’s intent to disclose this information but chose not to seek an injunction. But the Hodedah experience should be concerning for manufacturers and retailers alike, particularly if the SHARE Information Act passes in its current form. If the threat of an injunction preventing disclosure is eliminated, companies can expect more frequent—and perhaps even bolder—announcements from the CPSC about unconfirmed product hazards.

Potential Consequences for Retail Companies

The SHARE Information Act could create substantial liability for retail companies. This risk is compounded if the CPSC does not provide clarity as to the standards it expects consumer products to meet. It is no secret that the CPSC regularly tests a wide range of products for compliance with its regulations and voluntary standards. Companies, however, will often not be aware that the CPSC has tested their products. Without recourse to prevent the disclosure of inaccurate, misleading or otherwise premature information, an announcement from the CPSC about an alleged product hazard found during testing could cause significant disruption for businesses.

Whether or not the SHARE Information Act passes, the CPSC’s recent actions should encourage retail companies to evaluate their relationships with suppliers and manufacturers to ensure that appropriate indemnification agreements exist. Recall insurance is available and can be an effective tool to defray the costs of recalling a product from the market. Companies should also prepare crisis management plans designed to streamline communication both internally and externally should reports of product hazards be received.

The shadow of an inaccurate public report of a product hazard by the CPSC would loom large over a company. Consumer advocacy groups closely track CPSC activities and recalls and highlight companies whose products are affected, increasing pressure on companies from their customers. That publicity also tends to be fruitful fodder for enterprising plaintiff’s lawyers, who will undoubtedly look to capitalize early and often by filing product liability lawsuits touting any unfavorable CPSC findings. The weight of those findings may be persuasive to juries—even if companies present evidence proving that no hazard existed.

]]>2019 Retail Industry Year in Reviewhttps://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/2020/01/articles/advertising-marketing/2019-retail-industry-year-in-review/
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 19:50:36 +0000https://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/?p=13780Continue Reading]]>Innovation and developments in technology bring both opportunities and challenges for the retail industry, and Hunton Andrews Kurth has a sophisticated understanding of these issues and how they affect retailers. On January 23, 2020, our cross-disciplinary retail team, composed of over 200 lawyers, released our annual Retail Industry Year in Review. The 2019 edition, Spotlight on Technology, provides an overview and analysis of recent developments impacting retailers, as well as what to expect in 2020 and beyond. Topics discussed include: braille gift cards as the next wave of evolving accessibility litigation; enterprise software licensing audits; the intense FTC oversight of online user-generated reviews and influencer marketing; challenges around skilled immigration for staffing roles in a variety of technologically-driven professions in retail; the increase in retail bankruptcies and the “retail apocalypse”; M&A as an ongoing strategy for navigating growth; upcoming modifications of the FTC’s Made in the USA program; cyber insurance coverage for phishing schemes and coverage for privacy breaches; the intricacies in AI product liability cases; and key retail payment trends such as frictionless payments, mobile payments and the rise of voice commerce.

]]>Recall Roundup: Decemberhttps://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/2020/01/articles/consumer-protection/recall-roundup-december-4/
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 18:59:12 +0000https://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/?p=13770Continue Reading]]>The theme for this Recall Roundup is effectiveness of recalls. In October, the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation released an investigative report criticizing the CPSC’s data-handling breaches from the spring. This month, the Office of Oversight and Investigations Minority Staff from the same US Senate committee released a report criticizing the CPSC’s handling of three “high-profile failures to effectively recall dangerous products” last year. The report summarizes the CPSC’s actions related to jogging strollers, infant reclined sleeping products and home elevators. The report concludes that the CPSC’s “failures” are “the result of a pattern of inappropriate deference to industry that has characterized CPSC leadership in recent years.” The report recommends that the CPSC “at a minimum” increase the use of imminent health and safety warnings, fine companies that fail to timely report substantial products hazards and use refunds or consumer-friendly repairs as default remedies.

Also facing criticism over the effectiveness of a dresser recall, IKEA —the largest furniture retailer in the world—made headlines for agreeing to pay $46 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the parents of a two-year-old boy killed by a tipped over dresser that IKEA had recalled in 2016. The wrongful death lawsuit includes allegations that the boy’s parents “never received notice” of the 2016 recall because its notice was “wholly insufficient” and too “tepid to raise public awareness” of the furniture’s risk. In a USA Today article, the family’s lawyer said that IKEA had the parents’ contact information because their dresser was purchased on an IKEA credit card. The lawyer asserted that IKEA should have done everything it could to inform consumers and purchasers that the dressers were defective, suggesting that IKEA should have used the IKEA credit card information to facilitate a targeted, more effective notice of the recall. The lawyer attributed the settlement amount, in part, to IKEA’s failure to more aggressively promote the recall. The settlement obviates the need to test that theory of notice, but retailers with branded credit cards should take “notice” of this “notice” allegation.

IKEA’s recent $46 million settlement ups the ante from the settlements it reached in 2016 when IKEA paid $50 million to settle dresser tip-over cases brought by three families. Each family had a two-year-old boy killed by a tipped-over Ikea dresser. The families’ wrongful death claims alleged that the unsafe design of IKEA’s dressers rendered them inherently unstable and easily tipped over. The families asserted that, unlike other American furniture companies, IKEA consistently refused to meet voluntary safety standards for the stability of dressers. The families also claimed there was evidence to show that IKEA was aware of other deaths and injuries arising from furniture tip-overs that failed to meet the voluntary standards but refused to redesign its products to be more stable and tip-resistant. The 2016 lawsuits prompted IKEA to recall 29 million units of chests and dressers with tip-over hazards. This is the recall that led to IKEA’s recent $46 million settlement for a single plaintiff in response to the lawsuit challenging, among other things, the effectiveness of the recall.

]]>EPA Focuses on Potential Emissions from 3D Printinghttps://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/2019/12/articles/environmental/epa-focuses-on-potential-emissions-from-3d-printing/
Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:50:45 +0000https://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/?p=13750Continue Reading]]>As reported on December 10, 2019 in Hunton’s environmental law blog, “The Nickel Report”, additive manufacturing, more commonly known as 3D printing, has already found commercial application in various industries and its use is on the rise. 3D printing converts 3D digital models created on a computer or with a scanner into physical objects, usually by successively adding material layer by layer. The process allows manufacturers to make complex designs, rapid prototypes and final products while offering the potential to limit process waste and reduce production costs.

3D printing is no longer a novelty, as manufacturers in the automotive, aviation, medical, consumer goods, entertainment and numerous other industries are integrating 3D printing into their production processes…

]]>Recall Roundup: Novemberhttps://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/2019/12/articles/consumer-protection/recall-roundup-november-4/
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:03:30 +0000https://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/?p=13737Continue Reading]]>Last month, the CPSC and three affiliated retailers issued a joint warning to consumers after the retailers discovered they sold nearly 1,200 units of 19 previously recalled consumer products between 2014 and 2019. The range of products at issue varied, including infant sleepers, scarves, portable speakers, barstools, children’s cardigan sets, hoverboards, beer mugs, coffee presses and infant rattles. It remains to be seen whether any further CPSC action, such as a civil penalty or a requirement to implement stronger recall systems and protocols, will be taken with respect to these three retailers.

Over the past two years, furniture tip-overs have been well-publicized problems for the furniture injury. The CPSC recently issued a somber update on these problems. Between 2000 and 2018, there were 459 reported tip-over-related deaths involving children 17 years old and younger, with 93% of those deaths involving children under six years old. In more than half (55%) of these, the child was crushed by the weight of the television, furniture or appliance. These statistics suggest the dangers posed by furniture tip-overs will remain a focus area of the CPSC.

Two additional updates from the last Recall Roundup blog post are noteworthy. First, the CPSC previously issued guidance urging consumers not to use inclined infant sleep products after reports emerged of infant deaths. Several major U.S. retailers responded this month by pulling all infant sleep products—including those that are not currently subject to a recall—from store shelves and websites. Second, the CPSC updated its warning about liquid nicotine commonly used in e-cigarettes. The updated warning states that “[w]e are particularly concerned about reports that some stores are selling noncompliant products at a large discount, thereby implicitly acknowledging that they know that they are engaged in selling illegal products.” The updated warning reminds retailers that the sale of noncompliant products can lead to the imposition of civil penalties up to $16M.

]]>Recall Roundup: Octoberhttps://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/2019/11/articles/consumer-protection/recall-roundup-october-4/
Wed, 13 Nov 2019 21:33:24 +0000https://www.huntonretailindustryblog.com/?p=13708Continue Reading]]>This month, the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation released its investigative report on the CPSC’s data handling breaches from the spring. In April, the CPSC issued notices to multiple manufacturers explaining that “nonpublic manufacturer information” was released to the public without complying with Section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act. Section 6(b) prohibits the CPSC from disclosing information reported by product manufacturers without complying with the procedures for and restrictions on the commission’s public disclosure of such information. Section 6(b) aims to incentivize manufacturers to provide more safety information without fear of public backlash. The Senate committee’s report is troubling. It found that the CPSC made “improper disclosures to 29 unique entities” that “contained information on approximately 10,900 unique manufacturers, as well as street addresses, ages, and genders of approximately 30,000 consumers.” The Senate committee reviewed “hundreds of documents and emails and conducted multiple interviews” to conclude that the CPSC’s violations of Section 6(b) “were due to a lack of training, ineffective management, and poor information technology implementation.” The report cited several examples, such as that CPSC employees had “little to no Section 6(b) training” and were provided with “three different software applications to access and process relevant data without the necessary training on how to use these often confusing and idiosyncratic systems.” The Senate committee ended with a list of recommendations for the CPSC to remedy these problems and avoid future data-handling breaches.

This month the CPSC issued rare guidance urging consumers not to use inclined infant sleep products. The CPSC received reports of 1,108 incidents, including 72 infant deaths and several product recalls, related to infant inclined sleep products between January 2005 and June 2019. The CPSC hired an independent expert to conduct testing and evaluate the design of inclined sleep products. The expert measured infants’ muscle movements and oxygen saturation in various products and positions. According to the study, babies move differently in an inclined sleeper as compared to a firm, flat surface, suggesting that when infants end up on their stomachs, they can exhaust themselves and ultimately suffocate while trying to reposition. The expert then concluded that none of the inclined sleep products her team tested are safe for infant sleep with inclined seat backs of more than 10 degrees. Accordingly, the CPSC urged consumers not to use inclined infant sleep products and instead to place infants on a firm, flat surface for sleeping.

The CPSC also issued a warning about liquid nicotine commonly used in e-cigarettes. The CPSC is charged with administering the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act, which requires any nicotine provided in a liquid nicotine container to meet certain special child-resistant packaging requirements. With the recent increased media attention on the dangers associated with e-cigarette use, it is unsurprising that the CPSC would chime in to warn consumers that liquid nicotine lacking child-resistant packaging can be deadly for children and pets who may swallow it or absorb it through skin contact. The CPSC encourages consumers who have purchased liquid nicotine in bottles that lack child-resistant packaging to report it to the CPSC.